Pavel Bure or Quinn Hughes

[iceman1964]

 I noticed a talk on Canucks army about  Quinn Hughes being the best draft pick in Canucks history or not. 

 It's actually hard to say, on one hand it is a debate for sure but on the other it becomes one that Bure made a bigger impact on the franchise at his arrival that essentially put us on the map as far as a franchise goes, so the debate can go up another level as well.

 So what is your opinion on it? 

 With some more thought, I guess you could bring up Daniel and Henrik as well but I think they might be a shade and I do mean a shade under Bure and Hughes but that can be debated too I suppose, they didn't put us on the map like Bure did but they sure had a huge hand on keeping us there.

 

Edited August 7 by iceman1964

[Toni Zamboni]

i like them both equally

[Coconuts]

Bure's impact helped keep the Canucks in BC, that's pretty significant, but his tenure here was also pretty brief. Seven seasons sounds pretty good, but one of those seasons amounted to just over half a season of games played and another one had him play 15 games. 428 games as a Canuck. Yeah, Bure was a very special player and he was incredibly dynamic considering the period of hockey he played during, but I'm not interested in the "what if's" related to health, because those what if's didn't happen, his career was cut short by injuries, and he played a large chunk of his career elsewhere. 

 

Hughes is already at 365 games as a Canuck and he'll be 25 in October. He's arguably been the most important player on the team for a while now, it's quite clear that he's the team's engine from the back end. It's too early to gauge whether he's our best pick ever, but there's a strong chance he will have had a larger impact on the Canucks than Bure when it's all said and done.

 

There's also a very good argument for the twins being the best Canuck picks ever, although that kind of comes with the territory when you consider their achievements and draft slots. Their legacies are certainly stronger than Bure's imo. I'd personally have either one higher than Bure when considering their bodies of work, accomplishments, and so on. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Bure played in an era where guys like Bryan Marchment made a career of his patented "knee on knee" hit.  Thing is, he wasn't the only player like that.  Scott Stevens was deadly with his then legal hit shots.  

[NHLer]

Bure for entertainment value. Hughes for Stanley Cup value. 

[Ohthehumanity]

For draft value, it's Pavel and not even close, as he was taken very late due to his perceived eligibility to be drafted. Straight up, I would pick QH, and I'm a huge fan of Pavel and that era's players as this was when I played my teenage hockey.

[Rip The Mesh]

Pat Quinn pulled off the move of a lifetime scooping Bure out of the Soviet Union. Unreal talent. Would do anything to get a goal or make a pass.

Much of the time it was dirty big time, but from the tapes I've seen, it did have it's place in the way the game is played now.

[Ghostsof1915]

I know it's summer but lets cut this A or B stuff.

 

[smithers joe]

hughes is a team player, bure not so much.

[Coconuts]

9 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

I know it's summer but lets cut this A or B stuff.

 

 

C is for cookie, that's good enough for you?

[Ghostsof1915]

5 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

C is for cookie, that's good enough for you?

Cookies always win.

[Ghostsof1915]

1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Cookies always win.

 

[Gurn]

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

 

That was/is just so damn funny, grown man talks to puppet, during the breaks, like it's alive.

 

[Ghostsof1915]

2 minutes ago, Gurn said:

That was/is just so damn funny, grown man talks to puppet, during the breaks, like it's alive.

 

"I got cookie crumbs from the 80's!"

Comic improv and timing at it's best.

[Dr. Crossbar]

[AnthonyG]

Raw talent, Bure

IQ, Hughes

Both could take over a game in their own way. It’s hard to say, but I might take Bure over Hughes just because of the raw talent, speed and power that Bure had. The guys legs were fuckin tree trunks.  Bure could win a game by himself, Hughes can control a game, but I wouldn’t exactly say he could win a game by himself. 

[Coconuts]

https://thehockeynews.com/news/the-man-who-discovered-pavel-bure-celebrates-50-years-in-the-game

[Kevin Biestra]

2 hours ago, NHLer said:

Bure for entertainment value. Hughes for Stanley Cup value. 

 

Not sure why you would say that at this point.  Bure got us to the final and almost won the Conn Smythe.  So far I don't have much evidence that Hughes is going to put it into an extra gear in the playoffs and some evidence that he will get "Phil Housleyed" into semi-ineffectiveness.

[Kevin Biestra]

1 hour ago, smithers joe said:

hughes is a team player, bure not so much.

 

True Bure was more of an individualist but he was so good at it anyway that he could just win a game by himself.  Whatever had happened in the first four periods of something like Game 7 against Calgary in 1994...water under the bridge if the puck ended up on Pavel's stick.

[Ghostsof1915]

Bure would have achieved immortality if he had scored two goals in game 7 against New York.

[Kevin Biestra]

5 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Bure would have achieved immortality if he had scored two goals in game 7 against New York.

 

And there would thankfully be no Mark Messier Leadership Trophy.

[Ghostsof1915]

1 minute ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

And there would thankfully be no Mark Messier Leadership Trophy.

DAMN RIGHT!

[Heretic]

I'll let the only jersey I have that has a player's name on it speak:

 

[Jess]

Bure saved the team in the 90s, so it's hard to put a price on that. Nonetheless, Hughes will likely have the greater legacy as a Canuck in my mind.

 

Then again, I rate Bure far lower as a Canuck than most fans do due to his short tenure here. I'd argue his best years weren't even in Vancouver (Florida).